ANALYSIS OF BANK HEALTH LEVELS USING THE RGEC METHOD AT PT BANK PERMATA TBK, PERIOD 2013-2015

carried


Tommy Kuncara, Rini Dwiastutiningsih
Earnings, Liquidity, referred to as CAMEL, which is then added using measurement of the Sensitivity to Market Risk aspect so that it becomes CAMELS.
The rapid development of banking in Indonesia has made the Indonesian government change the method of assessing bank health levels, which was changed based on Bank Indonesia Circular Letter No. 13/24/DNP dated 25 October 2011, which in principle is that the level of soundness, bank management and continuity of bank business are the full responsibility of bank management.Banks are required to assess the Risk Profile, Good Corporate Governance (GCG), Earnings (Profitability), Capital (Capital) factors or what is abbreviated as the RGEC method.
The RGEC method which consists of a risk profile is an assessment of the inherent risks and quality of the implementation of risk management in bank operational activities.The second factor is good corporate governance, which is a system that regulates relationships between stakeholders in order to achieve company goals.The next factor is profitability (earnings), which is the company's ability to generate profits from the capital invested in total assets.Lastly, the capital factor shows the minimum amount of capital required to cover the risk of losses that may arise from investing in risky assets and financing all fixed assets and bank inventory.
Based on the background description that has been presented, the author tries to analyze the health level assessment using the RGEC method which consists of Risk Profile, Good Corporate Governance, Earning, and Capital with the title "BANK HEALTH ANALYSIS USING THE RGEC METHOD AT PT BANK PERMATA TBK, PERIOD 2013 -2015"..

METHODOLOGY Analysis Techniques
The analysis technique used is financial report analysis techniques using the approach of Bank Indonesia Regulation Number 13/PBI/2011 concerning the assessment of the Health Level of Commercial Banks.Bank Indonesia has established a risk-based Bank Health Level assessment system to replace the CAMELS assessment.The assessment of RGEC factors consists of:

Risk Profile (Risk Profile)
Risk profile factor assessment is an assessment of the inherent risks and quality of risk management implementation in bank operational activities.The risks that must be assessed consist of 8 (eight) types of risk, namely credit risk, market risk, liquidity risk, operational risk, legal risk, strategic risk, compliance risk and reputation risk.In this research, measuring factorsrisk profile using two indicators, namely the credit risk factor using the NPL formula and liquidity risk using the LDR formula.
a. Credit Risk

Good Corporate Governance (GCG)
Determination of the GCG factor ranking is carried out based on a comprehensive and structured analysis of the results of the assessment of the implementation of bank GCG principles and other information related to bank GCG which is based on relevant data and information to support analysis of the structure, processes and results of governance and their interrelationships.between each other.
This assessment includes evaluation of eleven parameters/indicators, which will then be given appropriate weightsself assesment and determinedrating GCG.The following are the assessment parameters/indicators and their weights:

Capital
The bank assessment method is based on the capital owned by the bank using ratiosCapital Adequency Ratio(CAR) The following explains how to determine a composite rating for assessing bank health levels: a. Rank 1 = every time the checklist is multiplied by 5 b.Rank 2 = every time the checklist is multiplied by 4 c.Rank 3 = every time the checklist is multiplied by 3 d.Rank 4 = every time the checklist is multiplied by 2 e. Rank 5 = every time the checklist is multiplied by 1 The composite value that has been obtained from multiplying each checklist is then weighted by presenting it.The weights/percentages for determining the overall composite ranking of components are as follows: Table 7 a) Composite Rating 1 (PK-1), reflects the generally very healthy condition of the bank so that it is considered very capable of facing significant negative influences from business conditions and other external factors.b) Composite Rating 2 (PK-2), reflects the generally healthy condition of the bank so that it is considered very capable of facing significant negative impacts from changes in business conditions and other external factors.c) Composite Rating 3 (PK-3), reflects the condition of the bank which is generally quite healthy so that it is considered very capable of facing significant negative impacts from changes in business conditions and other external factors.d) Composite Rating 4 (PK-4), reflects the bank's generally unhealthy condition and is therefore considered very capable of facing significant negative impacts from changes in business conditions and other external factors.e) Composite Rating 5 (PK-5), reflects the bank's condition which is generally unhealthy so that it is considered very unable to face significant negative impacts from changes in business conditions and other internal factors.Tommy Kuncara, Rini Dwiastutiningsih

Risk Profile
1. Credit Risk To determine credit risk, it is calculated using the NPL ratio(Non Performing Loan).The NPL ratio is calculated by dividing non-performing loans by total loans.Problematic credit is credit to non-bank third parties that is classified as substandard, doubtful and non-performing.Meanwhile, total credit is credit to third parties, not banks.Thus, the ratio calculationNon Performing Loan are as follows: In 2013, NPL was obtained(Net Performing Loan) Bank Permata is 1.03, which means that there are 1.03% of funds included in substandard, doubtful and bad credit from the total credit provided by the bank.The lower the NPL percentage, the lower the possibility of the bank experiencing losses due to uncollectible receivables and automatically profits will increase.Having an NPL percentage of 1.03% is included in the title of very healthy or in composite level 1 because it does not exceed the maximum limit of 2%.
In 2014, NPL was obtained(Net Performing Loan) Bank Permata is 1.74%, which means that there are 1.74% of funds included in non-performing loans from the total credit provided.In 2014 the bank experienced an increase in the NPL percentage from 2013 of 0.71%.This happened because of an increase in the amount of credit given to third parties.In 2013 the total credit provided reached IDR 119,442,824.Meanwhile, in 2014, there was an increase to IDR 133,087,789.In general, the greater the credit provided, the greater the risk of bad debts or problem credit.Despite experiencing an increase in the NPL percentage to 1.74%, Bank Permata is still included in the category of very healthy or in composite level 1 because it does not exceed the maximum limit of 2%.
In 2015, NPL was obtained(Net Performing Loan) Bank Permata is 2.77%, which means that there are 2.77% of funds included in non-performing loans from the total credit provided.In 2015 the bank experienced an increase in the NPL percentage from 2014 of 1.03%.In fact, if we look at the financial position report, the amount of credit given has decreased.In 2014 the credit provided was IDR 133,087,789.Meanwhile, in 2015 the credit provided reached IDR 129,156,234.This is because the total non-performing loans in 2015 increased by IDR 1,263,733.Even though the NPL percentage has increased to 2.77%, Bank Permata is still included in the healthy predicate or in composite level 2 because it does not exceed the maximum limit of 5%.

Liquidity Risk
This financial ratio explains that LDR (Loan Deposit Ratio) is used to assess the liquidity of a bank by comparing the amount of credit provided by the bank with third party funds, consisting of current accounts, savings, time deposits and periodic savings.Thus, the calculation of the LDR ratio is as follows: In 2013, LDR was obtained (Loan Deposit Ratio) Bank Permata amounting to 88.94% means that every fund collected by the bank can support loans provided amounting to 88.94% of the total credit provided, in this case the bank can manage deposits in the form of credit up to 88.94%.The LDR ratio obtained by Bank Permata in 2013 was quite high, this gives an indication of the lower liquidity capacity of Bank Permata because the amount of funds required to finance credit is becoming larger and credit placements are also financed from third party funds which can be withdrawn at any time. .Having an LDR ratio of 88.94% is included in the title of quite healthy or composite level 3 because it does not exceed the maximum limit of 100%.
In 2014, LDR was obtained (Loan Deposit Ratio) Bank Permata amounting to 88.77% means that every fund collected by the bank can support loans provided amounting to 88.7% of the total credit provided, in this case the bank can manage deposits in the form of credit up to 88.77%.There was a decrease of 0.17% from the previous year.Having an LDR ratio of 88.77% is included in the title of quite healthy or composite level 3 because it does not exceed the maximum limit of 100%.
In 2015, LDR was obtained (Loan Deposit Ratio) Bank Permata amounting to 86.53% means that every fund collected by the bank can support loans provided amounting to 86.53% of the total credit provided, in this case the bank can manage deposits in the form of credit up to 86.53%.There was a decrease of 2.24% from the previous year, this was because the total credit provided decreased from the previous year.Having an LDR ratio of 86.53% is included in the title of quite healthy or composite level 3 because it does not exceed the maximum limit of 100%

Good Corporate Governance (GCG)
Determination of the GCG factor ranking is carried out based on a comprehensive and structured analysis of the results of the assessment of the implementation of bank GCG principles and other information related to bank GCG which is based on relevant data and information to support analysis of the structure, processes and results of governance and their interrelationships.between each other.
This assessment includes evaluation of parameters/indicators which at least consist of: 1. Implementation of the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Commissioners; 2. Implementation of the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Directors; Tommy Kuncara, Rini Dwiastutiningsih 3. Completeness and implementation of the duties of Committees and work units that carry out the bank's internal control function; 4. Handling conflicts of interest; 5. Implementation of compliance functions; 6. Implementation of the internal audit function; 7. Implementation of external audit function; 8. Implementation of risk management including internal control systems; 9. Provision of funds to related parties(related party) and 10.Provision of large funds(large exposures) 11.Transparency of the bank's financial and non-financial conditions as well as the bank's strategic plans.
The following is the ranking of the results of the GCG implementation assessment at PT Bank Permata Tbk.2013-2015 period as follows: the healthy category because the results obtained are in accordance with the composite value limit for rank 2, namely 1.5%.Earnings with calculations using the ROA ratio 2013-2015 was declared in the quite healthy category, where in 2013 it was included in the very healthy category because the results were in accordance with ranking criteria 1, namely more than 1.5%.And for 2014 it is included in the quite healthy category because the results are in accordance with ranking criteria 3, namely more than 0.5% and not more than equal to 1.25%.Meanwhile, 2015 was included in the unhealthy category because the results were in accordance with the criteria for ranking 4, namely more than 0% and not more than equal to 0.5%.
Capital with calculations using the CAR formula in 2013-2015 it was declared in the very healthy category, where in 2013-2015 the results obtained were in accordance with the criteria for ranking 1, namely greater than 12%.
So from all the calculations of the ratios above, the results of the composite health rating at PT Bank Permata in 2013-2015 show that the bank's health predicate is in accordance with the standards set by Bank Indonesia with the conclusion of a composite rating of 1, which reflects the condition of the bank as a whole.In general, it is very healthy, so it is considered very capable of facing significant negative influences from changes in business conditions and other external factors.

CONCLUSION
Based on the results of research and discussion regarding assessing the level of bank health using the RGEC (Risk, Good Corporate Governance, Earning, and Capital) method, it can be concluded that Risk Profile in 2013-2015 was included in the healthy category, where this result was obtained from calculating the credit ratio to NPL and the liquidity ratio to LDR.Good Corporate Governance (GCG) in 2013-2015 is included in the very healthy category.Earnings calculated using the ROA ratio for 2013-2015 are stated in the quite healthy category.And Capital, calculated using the CAR formula for 2013-2015, was declared in the very healthy category.So from all the calculations of the ratios above, the composite health rating results obtained for PT Bank Permata in 2013-2015 are included in the composite rating category 1, which reflects the condition of the bank which is generally very healthy, so it is considered very capable of facing significant negative influences.from changes in business conditions and other external factors.

Table 1 .
Criteria Matrix for Determining Credit Risk Component (NPL) Ratings

Table 8 .
Table List of Elements Used

Table 10 .
LDR (Loan to Deposit Ratio)